New Jersey Administrative Code
Title 17 - TREASURY - GENERAL
Chapter 12 - DIVISION OF PURCHASE AND PROPERTY: PROCUREMENT BUREAU; CONTRACT COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT UNIT; AND DISTRIBUTION SUPPORT SERVICES UNIT
Subchapter 2 - ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES
Section 17:12-2.7 - Evaluation of proposals for advertised procurements
Current through Register Vol. 56, No. 6, March 18, 2024
(a) Except as otherwise provided in N.J.A.C. 17:12-2.9, proposals shall be evaluated in either of two ways, with a recommendation for proposed award(s) made to the Director upon conclusion of the evaluation. All recommendations, whether prepared by an evaluation committee or by a Division staff member assigned to conduct the procurement, are advisory in nature and not binding upon the Director. The evaluation methods are:
(b) For all RFPs that set forth evaluation criteria, values, or utility models to be applied by the evaluators in assessing the proposals, and that do not reveal specific, assigned weights or elements, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member shall, prior to the opening of proposals, determine, document, and date-stamp such weighted evaluation criteria, values, or utility models. For RFPs not having a negotiation component, the pre-set weighted evaluation criteria, values, or utility models shall be available to the public at the proposal opening event.
(c) Proposals shall be evaluated by the Division for compliance with the provisions of 17:12-2.2 and by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member for responsiveness to the material requirements of the RFP. A proposal that is not compliant with the provisions of 17:12-2.2 or responsive to the material requirements of the RFP shall not be eligible for further consideration for award of contract, and the bidder offering said proposal shall receive notice of the rejection of its proposal.
(d) The Director may waive minor irregularities or omissions in a proposal.
(e) The evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member may, by written request, ask a bidder to clarify, in writing, its proposal in order to determine whether a proposal should be further considered for award. The process of clarification is not an opportunity for a bidder to supplement, change, or correct its proposal. Any response or portion of a response by a bidder to the Division's written request for clarification that attempts to supplement, change, or correct its proposal shall be given no effect.
(f) The evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member shall determine which proposals are in the competitive range. Proposals deemed not to be in the competitive range need not be further evaluated. Proposals in the competitive range, except as may be limited as specified in this section, shall be evaluated by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member on the basis of price and the other evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Upon conclusion of the evaluation of the proposals, the committee or the assigned Division staff member shall prepare a written report with a recommendation for award based on its evaluation of the proposals, for the Director's consideration.
(g) The Director shall review the award recommendation and documentation presented by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member, and may accept it, modify it, reject it, or refer the modified award recommendation and documentation back to the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member for additional consideration. The Director retains the discretion to issue a notice of intent to award to a responsible bidder whose conforming proposal is most advantageous to the State, price and other factors considered, or to reject all proposals when the Director determines it is in the public interest or the State's interest to do so.
(h) The Director shall issue the notice of intent to award to all participating bidders. The notice of intent to award document sent to the scheduled contract awardee(s) shall include the identification of certification(s) and/or other essential documents that were not required to be included with the proposal but are required for contract award and a designated date when the required certifications and/or documents are due. A scheduled awardee's failure to comply within the time afforded shall constitute grounds for the Director's rescission of the notice of intent to award to the non-responding scheduled awardee. If the requested materials are not timely submitted, the Director may refer the matter back to the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member for consideration as to whether the scheduled award should proceed, with reconsideration of all pertinent factors, including the issue of assessment of costs incurred by the State as a result of the scheduled awardee's delay by, or the non-award of the contract to, the named awardee.
(i) In the event that it is determined that all proposals shall be rejected or no award shall be made, the Director shall so notify all bidders.
(j) In addition to the requirements for the evaluation of proposals set forth in (a) through (i) above, the following requirements shall apply to publicly advertised procurements that contain a negotiation component: